AUSTIN — Texas has spent six years locked in legal battles over a controversial voter identification law and its congressional and statehouse district maps.

Then, starting March 10, federal judges issued three consecutive rulings against the state. The first, from a district court in San Antonio, invalidated three congressional districts when it found that the Legislature drew the state's congressional maps with the intent to discriminate against minority voters.

“It’s the third strike against Texas in a matter of weeks,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a lead counsel for the Latino organizations in the redistricting case. “[The laws have] been found not just to have discriminated as a side effect, but these are three decisions finding that Texas intentionally racially discriminated against minority voters.”

The judge in Texas' voter ID case has said she'll rule after the legislative session on remedies her court will provide, giving lawmakers an opportunity to address her concerns first.

Fixing the state and congressional district maps is a more uncertain task. Plaintiffs have asked federal judges to force the state to change the congressional maps in time for the 2018 elections and will probably ask for the statehouse maps to be changed in light of Thursday's ruling. But it's unclear whether the court will grant the request.

And as far as legislative action goes, Republicans, who control both chambers, don't have the political motivation to change the maps.

"What's the upside for Republicans to engage in any redistricting this session?" said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University. "There is none."

But the recent rulings have raised the stakes. Plaintiffs also want the judges to make Texas the first state to be placed back on a "pre-clearance" list, which requires federal permission before election laws can be changed. A 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling removed Texas and several other states from the list.

“It would be a huge deal with national implications if Texas were put back on federal supervision,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. “A recognition that things have not improved enough in terms of race relations in voting to allow Texas to make its rules on its own.”

Nothing to gain

Lawmakers could take up redistricting during this legislative session, but they haven't appeared willing.

Dallas Democratic Rep. Eric Johnson, vice chairman of the House Redistricting Committee, has called repeatedly for the committee to meet following the court rulings. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus, a plaintiff in the case, has joined him.

Following Thursday's ruling, Dallas Rep. Rafael Anchia, who chairs the caucus, renewed his call for the drawing of new maps.

"It's time to get back to the drawing board to allow every community, including Latinos and African-Americans, the unfettered ability to vote for their candidate of choice," he said.

But Republican lawmakers say they don't see a need for new district maps, arguing that the maps in use haven't been found at fault. The court found that the maps drawn in 2011 were created with discriminatory intent, but the state has been using maps drawn in 2013 as a way to remedy the issues with the originals. The court has not ruled on the 2013 maps.

"The recent court rulings concern legislative districts that were repealed in 2013," Jason Embry, a spokesman for House Speaker Joe Straus, said in a written statement to The Dallas Morning News. "The court has not required the Legislature to consider changes to the redistricting plans that are currently in use."

Using the same line of reasoning, Republican Rep. Cindy Burkett of Sunnyvale, who chairs the redistricting committee, said, "It would be premature for the committee to consider changes to the current maps while the litigation is ongoing."

Plaintiffs in the case say the Legislature is trying to run out the clock to keep the current maps — and an electoral advantage for Republicans — in place until the next ones are drawn after the 2020 census.

Jones, the political science professor, said that if Republicans believe they can delay until then, it's a smart move to not address the issue during the legislative session. But it's also a political move.

"There's nothing to gain, but they have lots to lose," he said. "They can lose seats, they can create internal conflicts within the Republican Party, and they can be on the receiving end of Republican voters if they're seen as capitulating to Democrats."

Critics say taxpayer money is being wasted on defending maps and a voter ID law that discriminate against Texans. But they're confident that the recent court rulings will tilt things in their favor.

"Courts have weighed in very strongly on redistricting and voter ID, and it seems evident that the majority in this Legislature is not interested in dealing with these issues," said Arlington Rep. Chris Turner, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "But I'm confident that ultimately, it's going to be dealt with one way or the other."

If the Legislature won't redraw the maps, he said, the court has the ability to force it to do so.

"Sooner or later, the state is going to be forced to confront the reality that we have maps that are intentionally discriminatory for Congress and the Texas House," Turner said.

A long road ahead

Though the rulings have given critics hope, relief may be far off.

Lawmakers are trying to pass a bill to address the discriminatory issues found with the voter ID law. But Democrats say it falls short of meeting the standards that a district court set last year.

Plaintiffs want District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi to consider throwing out the law after the legislative session and returning the state to the federal government's "pre-clearance" list.

But even if that happened, the Texas attorney general's office would almost certainly challenge the decision in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. There, the plaintiffs would have a harder time proving the voter ID law was written with the intent to discriminate. And even if the circuit court determined it was, it would not automatically place the state under federal oversight.

For example, an appeals court overturned parts of North Carolina's voting law in July but did not place the state under federal oversight. And any decision at the circuit court level would probably be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Similarly, remedies in the redistricting case could be a slog.

The parties in the case are set to meet in San Antonio on Thursday. The three-judge panel will hear updates on whether a trial is needed and what a timeline for the rest of the case might look like.

But the panel has moved slowly and methodically throughout the case for over six years. It is unlikely to grant the plaintiffs' requests — for new congressional maps for the 2018 elections and federal oversight — before tackling other remaining issues, such as whether the 2013 interim maps were also discriminatory.

And even if the court sided with the plaintiffs in a trial and struck down the maps, Texas could appeal the decision to the U.S.Supreme Court — dragging out the case even longer.

"It could well be that the redistricting case doesn't get resolved until Texas starts on the 2020 round of redistricting," law professor Hasen said.